PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-26-18 11:14 AM - Post#254294
Article on what made this team tick this year, by Assistant Coach Nat Graham. Very insightful on Darnell, Jerome, Max, Matty M, Jake, Jackson, et al
http://www.thedp.com/article/2018/03/penn- mens-bas...
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4358
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: This years Quakers: by Nat Graham 03-26-18 12:08 PM - Post#254295
In response to PennFan10
Thank you for posting this. I think most of us understood from early on this season that there was something different about this group - something special. Penn basketball became fun to watch again because what Nat describes could be felt through the TV screen. And - I believe nearly all of us know that Nat's words ring true and for what this team achieved and how they achieved it, we are very thankful and appreciative. It was real and it was noticed.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: This years Quakers: by Nat Graham 03-26-18 12:12 PM - Post#254296
In response to AsiaSunset
No question about it---and I think it dates back to Steve's first days, when he met with Tony Hicks and told him that team interests had to prevail. The fact that there has been zero (obvious) dissension on a team where several players lost almost all playing time is remarkable. And the way they improved playing a team concept on both offense and defense was also remarkable.
Now if they can start hitting FTs.....
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1896
Reg: 11-29-04
|
03-26-18 01:18 PM - Post#254298
In response to palestra38
That article gave me chills.
I don't get to see much regarding the assistant coaches, but Nat Graham strikes me as a thoughtful young man and a great member of the coaching staff - from this article alone. The way he appreciates his team clearly resonates.
It will be hard to replicate this year, but I do think the culture will carry forward for several years to come. If they play with the effort, intelligence, and selflessness that they did this year, I'll be a delighted fan regardless of which way the ball bounces for them.
... and yes, practice FTs, everyone!
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
03-26-18 01:22 PM - Post#254299
In response to palestra38
I'm not a believer in grit.
In general talent wins. Talent however is dynamic and we've yet to fully quantify which players will rise and which won't. We do know that players who rise tend to be the ones who work incredibly hard to improve themselves and are highly determined. I also think it helps to check your ego at the door and subjugate yourself to the betterment of the team. Perhaps those qualities encompass 'grit'. And if so, then Foreman has it in spades. I don't know that I've seen any other player raise his game every single season like he did, going from being a sub-replacement player as a Freshman to one of the better players in the league.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-26-18 01:40 PM - Post#254300
In response to TheLine
Talent and ability to play together. Penn consistently got better shots than its Ivy competition, including Harvard, which had more pure talent. Coaching and coachability are the key factors there.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-26-18 01:56 PM - Post#254303
In response to palestra38
I get extremely uncomfortable with talk of champions mentality, heart, grit whatever. The best thing that happened to Penn 2017-2018 was not competing against any of the champions from the last 5 years or so. Those teams would have won the Ivies outright and would have been strong favorites for the Ivy tournament. If they win, or heck, if Harvard had won this year, does all the nice stuff about Darnell/Steve/AJ/etc go away?
Steve had nothing to do with Princeton's implosion. Steve did not Tonya Harding Makai Mason/Jordan Brunner.
This isn't to take away the improvement that Penn had. It's great! But I wonder how unique and special we'd think of this team if it played exactly how it did and finished 2nd.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-26-18 02:00 PM - Post#254306
In response to Jeff2sf
Princeton didn't implode--they lost a class of seniors they could not replace. They were seriously overrated coming into the season.
But really, who cares about other teams' injuries? Penn beat the teams they had to beat to win the title. I agree though, that it was less "grit" and more teamwork that allowed us to beat Yale and Harvard twice (and the away Yale game was a giveaway, but we outplayed them). It's not easy in any Ivy season to outplay as many teams as we did this season, especially on the road. Penn won games that better (on paper) Penn teams lost. So call it grit or whatever, this team had something more than just pure talent.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-26-18 02:01 PM - Post#254307
In response to palestra38
Penn won games that better (on paper) Penn teams lost.
yeah this is horse sh!t
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
This years Quakers: by Nat Graham 03-26-18 02:06 PM - Post#254308
In response to Jeff2sf
Thoughtful, as always.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-26-18 02:20 PM - Post#254309
In response to palestra38
Sorry, "your assertion, which isn't supported by any data and just by your feelings and already documented poor grasp of the sport of basketball, gives off the olfactory scent of equine excrement".
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: This years Quakers: by Nat Graham 03-26-18 02:21 PM - Post#254310
In response to palestra38
Really really my last word on the subject, because Jeff always makes it about himself, even a feel good thread about Penn's togetherness. Remember Jeff now claims to have been right about his predictions for Penn (since in his view, all that matters is KenPom, not results on the court)--and here is Jeff waxing poetically about Penn having absolutely no chance to win this year unless its freshmen (from whom Penn received almost no contribution) were major contributors....
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 3732
Reg: 11-22-04
Offline Back to next season
08-09-17 05:28 PM - Post#231735
In response to PennFan10
one thing I don't think all penn fans get is that it's not that it would be nice if Simmons or Jelani/Scott (although it seems Scott's not going to be it) emerged this year.
IT'S THAT IT'S UTTERLY NECESSARY AND STILL MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT THAT ONE DOES FOR US TO WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS.
Go ahead and read that again. We can not rely on our players who are already in the system improving. Why? Because we're way behind Harvard and Princeton and their players will also improve, the null hypothesis has to be that they'll basically improve at the same rate though you could argue that given Harvard's and Princeton's better program culture (kind of a catch all term for a bunch of things including coaching, development, attitude around the program, etc.) they might improve at a higher rate than our guys
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-26-18 02:30 PM - Post#254312
In response to palestra38
yeah, did you bring up the post where I said we'd be between a 120-130 KenPom and we were... 126? My god, I was one spot off on a guess of 350 teams.
I guessed wrong on Princeton and Harvard, I don't follow them as closely. Princeton imploded, Harvard lost its point guard. I did a great job.
You quite loudly predicted Antonio Woods would be special.
|
Charlie Fog
Masters Student
Posts: 586
Age: 55
Loc: Philly
Reg: 11-12-13
|
03-26-18 02:32 PM - Post#254313
In response to palestra38
Thanks Nat, great article that really captures what all fans of Penn basketball saw in this team early on this season. Cannot wait for next season!
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-26-18 02:36 PM - Post#254314
In response to Jeff2sf
KenPom is irrelevant. 126 this year is not 126 any other year. It just measures performance against other teams (and of course cannot adjust for a weak schedule, as we had).
When it comes to actual understanding of the game and how we match up with our rivals, you were way off. That's fine--we all make mistakes, but again, you make everything about you, even in this feel good story discussion.
And if you don't realize how special Antonio Woods was this year, imagine Jake Silpe or Jackson Donahue had his minutes.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1896
Reg: 11-29-04
|
03-26-18 02:51 PM - Post#254318
In response to palestra38
KenPom is irrelevant. 126 this year is not 126 any other year. It just measures performance against other teams (and of course cannot adjust for a weak schedule, as we had).
When it comes to actual understanding of the game and how we match up with our rivals, you were way off. That's fine--we all make mistakes, but again, you make everything about you, even in this feel good story discussion.
And if you don't realize how special Antonio Woods was this year, imagine Jake Silpe or Jackson Donahue had his minutes.
Don't any of you read my posts? Everyone was TERRIBLE on predictions except for 1970 and 10Q. No one else has shown any predictive power beyond a few darts thrown right!
|
T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
PhD Student
Posts: 1171
Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
|
03-26-18 02:55 PM - Post#254321
In response to Penndemonium
Don't any of you read my posts? Everyone was TERRIBLE on predictions except for 1970 and 10Q. No one else has shown any predictive power beyond a few darts thrown right!
Who was the grittiest poster of the year?
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-26-18 02:59 PM - Post#254323
In response to Penndemonium
KenPom is irrelevant. 126 this year is not 126 any other year. It just measures performance against other teams (and of course cannot adjust for a weak schedule, as we had).
When it comes to actual understanding of the game and how we match up with our rivals, you were way off. That's fine--we all make mistakes, but again, you make everything about you, even in this feel good story discussion.
And if you don't realize how special Antonio Woods was this year, imagine Jake Silpe or Jackson Donahue had his minutes.
Don't any of you read my posts? Everyone was TERRIBLE on predictions except for 1970 and 10Q. No one else has shown any predictive power beyond a few darts thrown right!
yeah i don't know what you're looking at, my man. PF10, Mike Porter, me. We all did a very nice job
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-26-18 03:01 PM - Post#254325
In response to palestra38
KenPom is irrelevant. 126 this year is not 126 any other year. It just measures performance against other teams (and of course cannot adjust for a weak schedule, as we had).
No. No. That's exactly what it does.
And if you don't realize how special Antonio Woods was this year, imagine Jake Silpe or Jackson Donahue had his minutes.
I don't think you understand what the word special means. It most definitely doesn't mean "better than Jake Silpe or Jackson Donahue". If it did, we'd all probably have agreed with you. But it doesn't.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: This years Quakers: by Nat Graham 03-26-18 03:04 PM - Post#254326
In response to PennFan10
Wonderful article.
Yes, selfless play by all, regardless of playing status, both on and off the court. We really haven't seen another Penn team quite like it. You could argue that this was the magic ingredient, though somewhat intangible and difficult to quantify, that put us over the top despite less than stellar "talent" on an individual level.
Edited by penn nation on 03-26-18 03:04 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|